Let's try again, then

[ban-all-sheds]

If you're going to post something like that, though, at least pose something that has even a modicum of plausibility as to the possbility of it happening in this country.

Notwithstanding the cop-outs, lies, secret deals and general underhandedness of the current incumbents at the Westminster pig trough, the probability of UKAF mounting something like that remains more remote than little martians being spotted on camera over the next few weeks.

I agree it's remote (probably not as remote as you say, but definitely remote), but the RAF isn't the only air force in the world, and others, like the US and Israeli ones, do routinely target civilians. And our armed forces sometimes play a supporting role (remember Fallujah?), and in the past have deliberately targeted civilians.

Imagine you had a daughter, and your little girl had been blown to pieces on a bus, and you're sorting through the carnage trying to find the bits of her body so you can bury her - are you really going to feel less anger and grief if the bomb had been dropped from a plane flown by a man in uniform rather than carried on by a man in jeans and t-shirt?

Are you really going to feel less anger and grief if the person who blew the bus up did it because he was paid to rather than because he believed it would further his cause?

I say this not to excuse terrorist acts, or to say we shouldn't try and stop them or punish the people who carry them out, even if we are to some extent reaping what we have sown, but we have to recognise that for the people who are maimed, blinded, orphaned, who lose loved ones, the grief is exactly the same, the rage is exactly the same.

doitall asked "What is your cure for a group of men that blow a bus load of kids up, slap their wrists and tell them not to do it again perhaps ?" - I judged (I think correctly) that he was only thinking about people in jeans carrying rucksacks, not people in flight suits flying planes, and I wrote what I did to maybe get him to question what the difference is to the people on the receiving end of the blast.

I wrote what I did because we have to stop assuming that only terrorists destroy lives by blowing up buses, we have to stop assuming that whatever a man in uniform does when following orders has to be right, we have to stop assuming that the use of violence and killing by group A against group B is any better (or worse) than the use of violence and killing by group B against group A.

For if we do not then we will continue to sow what we, and future generations, will reap.

 

[noseall]

there will always be Doves and there will always be Hawks............

 

[megawatt]

If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a member of the armed forces (of any country) then you are a complete lost cause BAS and it's pointless taking this any further.

MW

 

[Thermo]

Untitled

• Thermo
• 23 Jun 2008
• 1

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a member of the armed forces (of any country) then you are a complete lost cause BAS and it's pointless taking this any further.

What's the difference from the perspective of the victims?

 

[sooey]

doitall asked "What is your cure for a group of men that blow a bus load of kids up, slap their wrists and tell them not to do it again perhaps ?" - I judged (I think correctly) that he was only thinking about people in jeans carrying rucksacks, not people in flight suits flying planes, and I wrote what I did to maybe get him to question what the difference is to the people on the receiving end of the blast.

I wrote what I did because we have to stop assuming that only terrorists destroy lives by blowing up buses, we have to stop assuming that whatever a man in uniform does when following orders has to be right, we have to stop assuming that the use of violence and killing by group A against group B is any better (or worse) than the use of violence and killing by group B against group A.

For if we do not then we will continue to sow what we, and future generations, will reap.
__________________

Well I never thought I would say this, but I have to agree with banallsheds. The Americans like to give the impression that their precision weapons give them the ability to target only the "bad guys". We all know though that bombs don't discriminate, and their must have been many thousands of innocents blown to pieces in Iraq. Bush's ridiculous, unwinnable war on terror has been the best recruiting agent for terrorists in a long time, I'm not happy about the part that Britain has played in this, and wish that our politicians had the backbone to stand up for this country, even if sometimes that goes against what the Americans would want us to do.

 

[megawatt]

There's a hell of a difference between terrorism and legitimate warfare.

Sure, we can all question the legitimacy of certain recent conflicts but, on the assumption that democractic countries generally don't declare war indiscriminately, the conflicts are purposeful and civilian casualties will inevitably occur as a by-product of the conflict.

The big difference though (which I shouldn't need to point out here) is that civilians are not targeted in warfare whereas in terrorism they are legitimate targets.

That's a very real difference which anyone with half a brain would understand.

BAS, I accept that you don't fit the above criteria so you needn't reply.

MW

 

[sooey]

Sure, we can all question the legitimacy of certain recent conflicts but, on the assumption that democractic countries generally don't declare war indiscriminately, the conflicts are purposeful and civilian casualties will inevitably occur as a by-product of the conflict.

In the case of Iraq, that's a hell of a big assumption.

The big difference though (which I shouldn't need to point out here) is that civilians are not targeted in warfare whereas in terrorism they are legitimate targets.

They're just as dead though. If you are going to bomb cities with modern day munitions you are going to kill many people. Afghanistan, fair enough I suppose. But there's no way that we should be in Iraq, that was down to Bush and his advisors and the agenda was never about weapons of mass destruction, or regime change, as we all know. It was always about oil, in my opinion.

 

[megawatt]

Whether or not the conflict is legitimate isn't the issue here.

Whether or not we should all be living in peace with one another and not trying to kill each other at every turn isn't the issue here.

The important thing is understanding the very big distinction between terrorism and warfare ... This is fundamental to any democracy

I'm not arguing that the Iraq war was just nor am I deluded enough to believe that we are going to live side by side in harmony with islamic fundamentalists.

I do know the difference between a campaign of terror and a planned warfare attack though and, despite what you may read in the tabloids, Bush and Co would not have planned to kill civilians.

MW

 

[sooey]

Whether or not the conflict is legitimate isn't the issue here.

How can it not be? Who defines legitimacy anyway? If the worlds most powerful country decides to attack smaller nations, or prop up friendly regimes at the expense of the inhabitants, you can't blame people affected for getting a cob on about it.

I do know the difference between a campaign of terror and a planned warfare attack though and, despite what you may read in the tabloids, Bush and Co would not have planned to kill civilians.

Come on, they planned a major bombing campaign on a hugely populated large city.

The important thing is understanding the very big distinction between terrorism and warfare ... This is fundamental to any democracy

Anyone who takes a bomb into a crowded place and blows innocent people up deliberately deserves to roast in hell. But it is understandable that hot headed young men can be manipulated into doing unspeakable things when they percieve, rightly or wrongly, that unspeakable things are being done to their people.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There's a hell of a difference between terrorism and legitimate warfare.

What difference is perceived by the man trying to find enough bits of his little girl to bury?

Sure, we can all question the legitimacy of certain recent conflicts but, on the assumption that democractic countries generally don't declare war indiscriminately,

A deeply flawed assumption. But even if the "war" is not indiscriminately declared, explain how having your child turned into mincemeat by an air force pilot or a tank gunner is less upsetting than having it done by a terrorist.

the conflicts are purposeful and civilian casualties will inevitably occur as a by-product of the conflict.

Inevitable - yes.

By-product? You must be joking.

The big difference though (which I shouldn't need to point out here) is that civilians are not targeted in warfare whereas in terrorism they are legitimate targets.

Of course they are targeted in warfare - don't be naive.

I do know the difference between a campaign of terror and a planned warfare attack though

So the planned American blitzkrieg on Baghdad was not intended to induce feelings of terror in the inhabitants?

And to the children who will have to grow up without a Daddy, what difference will they think exists between a planned terror attack and a campaign of warfare?

and, despite what you may read in the tabloids, Bush and Co would not have planned to kill civilians.

Of course they did - don't be naive.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Anyone who takes a bomb into a crowded place and blows innocent people up deliberately deserves to roast in hell.

What about someone who drops a bomb from a plane into a crowded place, or fires a shell from a tank?

 

[JohnD]

The important thing is understanding the very big distinction between terrorism and warfare ... This is fundamental to any democracy

Help me with this distinction, please.

Let's suppose employees of a government of one country commit bombings and shootings, in a second country, with the objective of destabilising or overthrowing the government of that second country.

Is it warfare because the acts are committed by the employees of the first government? Or is it terrorism because the acts are committed undercover without war being declared? Or is it warfare because the first government sincerely believes that the government of the second country ought to be overthrown? Or is it terrorism if the employees of the first country attempt to evade detection?

Is it terrorism or warfare if uniformed soldiers, employed by the government of one country, and using officially-issued guns and ammunition, while on duty, fire a shell at a family of unarmed civillians having a picnic on a beach, and kill them?

Does it make a difference if one, or both, governments have been democratically elected?

Or does the decision depend on which of the two governments you have more sympathy with?

 

[sooey]

Or does the decision depend on which of the two governments you have more sympathy with?

I think it usually depends on who wins. They're the ones who write the history books.

 

[megawatt]

If you guys really don't understand the fundamental differences between terrorism and warfare I'm not about to waste my time on you.

Go and educate yourselves.

MW